Anthony Boyd, an Alabama death-row inmate, challenged Alabama’s lethal-injection protocol under the Eighth Amendment. He alleged that replacing pentobarbital with midazolam created an unconstitutional risk of severe pain, but proposed hanging or firing squad as alternative methods rather than an alternative lethal-injection protocol or one of the methods authorized by Alabama law. The district court dismissed his Section 1983 complaint. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Applying Supreme Court precedent and its own earlier decision, the court held that a prisoner challenging a method of execution must plausibly plead an alternative method that is feasible, readily implemented, and significantly safer. Boyd’s allegations did not plausibly show that Alabama could readily implement hanging or firing squad, and state law did not authorize those methods. A concurring opinion agreed that circuit precedent controlled but criticized the earlier precedent as wrongly decided.